Impeach wrote:I don't feel that I should have to justify my rights.
I've decided that I have a right to all your money. Do you feel as if that right requires justification? If not, would you prefer to pay me with a check, or in cash?
we need to justify our rights. Rights exist because they leave us better off. When rights don't leave us better off, we change them, get rid of them, or make new ones. Just as one example: Women didn't have the right to vote in the US. This turned out to be a bad move, so the US expanded voting rights. Another example: At some point, we decided no one had a right to sell certain types of alcohol. Eventually, we couldn't justify this, so we got rid of that right.
This is how rights work. If they're good, we keep them. If they're bad, we dump them. So...
Impeach wrote:We may differ (or in the end me might not) on whether or not it is a right to own a personal firearm but it makes no difference what I plan to get out of my rights. The whole point is that your rights cannot be challenged and if they are, you can strait up KILL whoever is trying to remove them. Dictators, the ones who are usually the culprits where rights are attacked, will have a pretty hard time controlling a populace that is armed to the teeth.
Are you sincerely afraid of a dictator rising in the US?
Impeach wrote:As for why you should care about this right as much as freedom of speech and safety against unlawful arrest, at the end of the day, how do you think you retain these rights? If you think that these rights do not need protection, you are mistaken. If I am unlawfully arrested, it happened and whether or not it is legal, my rights were violated. The struggle here is not to get people to verbally agree that these are rights, but to make sure that is how things really work. I should not have to really on a federal government to ensure that this doesn't happen to me. The whole point of a right is that you don't have to ask anyone. You don't need permission to exercise these rights. Someone attempts to keep you from exercising the right to not be indefinitely detained without a trial, you justifiably kill them.
Does having a gun somehow protect you from being unlawfully arrested? If you use a gun to resist an unlawful arrest, how do you think that will work out for you? Do you think the end result will be positive for you?
Impeach wrote:I mentioned earlier about the NDAA, which is an executive order signed early this January. Executive orders are issued by the executive branch without any congressional oversight or input from the courts. This particular executive order says that American citizens, if suspected to be a domestic threat, can be taken by force, detained indefinitely and never have to be given a free trial or even told what they are being accused of. This demonstrates why citizens may very well have to take the enforcement of their rights into their own hands and that is why I support the right to bear arms. It has nothing to do with organizing a militia against foreign invasion, it's just an added bonus that the hundreds of millions of guns in this country would scare the shit out of anyone who even thought about invading.
Do you think that having a gun will somehow protect you if the US government decided to break into your home, arrest you, and take you away to never be seen again?
Assuming you don't live in a compound surrounded by armed and trained militia willing to die protecting you.
Impeach wrote:Accusations of mental instability aside, what moral objection do you to have with AJ?
If he discovers sincerely troubling decisions made by the government, it won't matter, because it's lost in the haze of nonsense he's constantly spewing. He actually makes it harder
to find out what bad things the government is up to--because if he says it, people assume it's nonsense (because 99% of it probably is